I think the Govt. has the right to set a set of standards that are expected of Websites in regards to material that can be Posted, and I whole heartedly support efforts to stamp out such things as pedophile sites and to protect young children Online.

I also applaud efforts to deal to Hate-mongering sites of ANY persuasion, but there are limits to what I feel they should or should not allow us, as ordinary people see and have access to on the Web. It's a fine balancing act I know, and some do it better than others.

Censor opinion? No. And as long as they're not actively inciting violence (ie "If you wish to participate in a jihad suicide bombing, meet here on X date", "Lynching party tomorrow at the park!") I don't even think so-called "hate speech" should be censored. If people want to advertise they're a jackwagon on the internet, let 'em.

Take down stolen files (biggest cojones have to be to 'sharedtermpapers' who graciously allow authors to 'opt out' of having their ebooks shared--um, I am not 'opting out', I'm reminding you if you post someone's book to file-share it's THEFT and hell YES I will report you for allowing it), charge people for theft of intellectual property, prohibit transmission of privileged/classified documents? Absolutely.

Part of the problem becomes : WHICH government? The US doesn't have much rights in regards to sites hosted in other countries, nor do other countries have rights over sites posted here.

I don't like hate sites or pediofile sites. I choose NOT to visit, and I can block them on the Kidling's computer. I think a child's online safety should be their parents' responsibility.

AS to who should be able to say what can and cannot be posted on any given site: the site owner and/or host. Moderators help with those duties. When you don't like what is on a site, just be smart enough to stay away from it.

Censor opinion? No. And as long as they're not actively inciting violence (ie "If you wish to participate in a jihad suicide bombing, meet here on X date", "Lynching party tomorrow at the park!") I don't even think so-called "hate speech" should be censored. If people want to advertise they're a jackwagon on the internet, let 'em.

Take down stolen files (biggest cojones have to be to 'sharedtermpapers' who graciously allow authors to 'opt out' of having their ebooks shared--um, I am not 'opting out', I'm reminding you if you post someone's book to file-share it's THEFT and hell YES I will report you for allowing it), charge people for theft of intellectual property, prohibit transmission of privileged/classified documents? Absolutely.

I do not believe a government should make any laws that impose undue burdens on the site owners. I also believe that we in the U.S. have enough laws already in place about coprighted materials that we don't need the kind of laws that led to the shutting down and raiding of sites like megaupload and megashare, just to name two.

__________________All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

The company and its owners are all foreigners, at that. The arrests were made at the request of American law enforcement by the appropriate foreign agencies. I have to wonder, since the FBI is taking credit for the arrests and by charter has no authority outside of the U.S., did our government simply request cooperation, or was there some other coersion or "arm-twisting"?

__________________All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Look, lets be clear here, Augustus Gloop has, by the looks of it, broken several Copyright laws, probably both here and perhaps on deeper investigation, NZ law, but I have to wonder just what sort or 'Arm Twisting' or deals that have gone on for NZP to take him down on behalf of the FBI.

Another big question that's being asked over this whole mess is, despite Germany's 'Clean Slate Law', how did this half baked git got residency here in the first place.

I do not believe a government should make any laws that impose undue burdens on the site owners. I also believe that we in the U.S. have enough laws already in place about coprighted materials that we don't need the kind of laws that led to the shutting down and raiding of sites like megaupload and megashare, just to name two.

If the law demands that the site check each and every upload (remember, a post on a web board such as this is an upload) to be sure it doesn't contain any illegal or copyrighted material reproduced for profit without the copyright holder's permission. And so on, and so on.

These laws go off the deep end. They place undue financial burden on the operators of smaller sites to police their content. It could affect such sites as Wikipedia and Facebook strictly through the way they're so badly written. The author of the bills is accepting money from the big interests, such as the film and music industries to get this crap passed, no doubt.

__________________All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

The big story has been that Megaupload was raided and shut down. It was done "in cooperation" with the FBI, which has absolutely no authority outside the United States. Why? Well, they were up- and downloading copyrighted material.

Now comes ACTA. This latest is not an American law, but an international trade agreement. As such, the citizens of any and all countries will not necessarily even be told about it, much less vote on its acceptance. Here's an email I got from an organization that's trying to fight this attempt at international internet censorship:

Dear friends,

Last week, 3 million of us beat back America's attack on our Internet! --- but there is an even bigger threat out there, and our global movement for freedom online is perfectly poised to kill it for good.

ACTA - a global treaty - could allow corporations to censor the Internet. Negotiated in secret by a small number of rich countries and corporate powers, it would set up a shadowy new anti-counterfeiting body to allow private interests to police everything that we do online and impose massive penalties -- even prison sentences -- against people they say have harmed their business.

Europe is deciding right now whether to ratify ACTA -- and without them, this global attack on Internet freedom will collapse. We know they have opposed ACTA before, but some members of Parliament are wavering -- let's give them the push they need to reject the treaty. Sign the petition -- we'll do a spectacular delivery in Brussels when we reach 500,000 signatures:

It's outrageous -- governments of four fifths of the world’s people were excluded from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations and unelected bureaucrats have worked closely with corporate lobbyists to craft new rules and a dangerously powerful enforcement regime. ACTA would initially cover the US, EU and 9 other countries, then be rolled out across the world. But if we can get the EU to say no now, the treaty will lose momentum and could stall for good.

The oppressively strict regulations could mean people everywhere are punished for simple acts such as sharing a newspaper article or uploading a video of a party where copyrighted music is played. Sold as a trade agreement to protect copyrights, ACTA could also ban lifesaving generic drugs and threaten local farmers' access to the seeds they need. And, amazingly, the ACTA committee will have carte blanche to change its own rules and sanctions with no democratic scrutiny.

Big corporate interests are pushing hard for this, but the EU Parliament stands in the way. Let's send a loud call to Parliamentarians to face down the lobbies and stand firm for Internet freedom. Sign now and send to everyone you know.

Last week, we saw the strength of our collective power when millions of us joined forces to stop the US from passing an Internet censorship law that would have struck at the heart of the Internet. We also showed the world how powerful our voices can be. Let's raise them again to tackle this new threat.

With hope and determination,

Dalia, Alice, Pascal, Emma, Ricken, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team

The problem with these is that they're too easy to circumvent for pirates, but they will probably put an end to any fan activity which involves screencaps from tv-shows or movies, even if it's done without profit to the board owner. It would no longer be possible to post custom made avatars or signatures featuring copyrighted material, which has been allowed under fair use rules so far.

Now, if the studios and execs would get it through their thick heads that making individual episodes available online for a small fee (I'd happily pay one or two euros per ep) internationally as soon as a show is released in the US (or internationally depending on the show, but most such are made in the US) would radically cut down on piracy to their profit. The only show I ever downloaded was BSG, and that was because I was a moderator at a BSG board and needed to see the shows ASAP to avoid spoilers (a host who can't go to all threads isn't much use). To be fair, I bought the DVDs as soon as they became available and we're considering buying the show on blu-ray. Not that it would stand up as an excuse in court, but I think most people would prefer to do things the legal way as long as it isn't too expensive or too difficult.

Going back to the OP though, I wholly support censoring child porn. Most adults in the porn industry presumably know what they're doing and benefit financially from it, but the same can't be said for children who are being exploited for the sexual perversions of others.

__________________Decaf coffee is an oxymoron. Instant coffee is an abomination. Give me the real thing and nobody gets hurt.
"Do. Or do not. There is no try" -- Yoda
VP of the Afra Lyon fan club!